nwnfandomcom-20200213-history
Talk:Circle kick
Working or broken? So cirlce kick actually works now? It was my understanding that it didn't. Another Broken Feat.. -- September 29, 2005 (PDT) *It works in that they fixed it dropping the PC out of combat by choosing a Circle Kick target out of range (as of patch 1.65). However, it still switches combat to a new target if one is in range. This, while not contradicting the feat description, is probably not what the average player expects from reading the feat description. So some may still consider it "broken", but it is now working as BioWare intended. --Llandru 21:20, 29 Sep 2005 (PDT) :*It can still switch combat to a target out of range for Giants and larger enemies as of 1.66. -- October 23, 2005 ::*That actually isn't all 'circle kick' fault. Cleave, AOO and other related switch enemy feat can do the same thing - they also can try to target something out of range and leave you flat footed. -- Chrominium 14:22, 23 Oct 2005 (PDT) Random commentary Given this behaviour: # a Monk who takes circle kick will need to watch combat like a hawk to catch when the character stops attacking. # When fighting mages, it might be better to switch to a Kama so that you can ensure you keep attacking them until they are dead, else you could switch your attack focus and then get creamed from a spell from behind. Never let a caster get off a spell. # Lastly, consider taking this feat with Great Cleave. They work great in combination with each other and the combination tends to be self correcting (not perfectly though) when fighting mobs. -- PDWalker October 24, 2005 Redundancy As this point seems to cause confusion as to its redundancy I wish to discuss it here: "It also has the problem of switching targets when you're trying to attack a specific opponent (for example, a dangerous spellcaster), making you unable to return to your target until the next round and forcing you to do it manually." This is a lesser problem with the re-targeting bug. You still attack but are attacking a creature who you do not wish to attack first and cannot change targets until the round has expired (and sometimes not even that often). You can, however, (right before the circle kick is performed) run to the other side of the screen and select to attack another creature. You will move up to that creature and instead of attacking it you will make one flurry of attacks against the creature you left on the other side of the screen, then you suffer the more severe aspect of the bug and are flatfooted until the next round in which you must initiate an attack. "It is believed this feat is bugged in that often after making a circle kick attack, the character ceases attacking and is flat-footed until the player manually initiates a new attack. This happens when the target of the circle kick is just out of range of the unarmed player's attack, engaging the player using a weapon with a longer reach. The circle kick may or may not connect, but the character will cease fighting due to its target being out of range. This can be avoided by always staying close to all of the enemies that are attacking." This is the more severe problem of the re-targeting bug when your circle kick is applied to a creature that you ordinarily could not target, and thus you lose all the rest of your attacks for that round. You can move around, to avoid being caught flatfooted. It can be noted that as of the 1.69, attacks of opportunity and cleave (also great cleave) can also suffer from both occurrences re-targeting bug. (Though cleave by itself can often make the final blow against the same creature you were attacking but did not kill). WhiZard 14:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC) * This is not the redundancy I was eliminating. The redundancy involves the following two notes: :# "When ''circle kick is used, it shifts the focus of the attack to a different opponent, allowing each opponent to survive longer. Thus, many players think this is a useless feat, as they prefer to focus on killing the first opponent before going onto the next."'' :# "It also has the problem of switching targets when you're trying to attack a specific opponent (for example, a dangerous spellcaster), making you unable to return to your target until the next round and forcing you to do it manually." : In other words, circle kick shifts your target, and it also has the problem of shifting your target. Looks redundant to me. --The Krit 15:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC) :*Perhaps this would work ::: When ''circle kick is used, it shifts the focus of the attack to a different opponent, allowing each opponent to survive longer. When this happens manually selecting the first target will have no impact until the end of the round. Thus, many players think this is a useless feat, as they prefer to focus on killing the first opponent before going onto the next.'' ::WhiZard 16:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC) ::* That could work. It seems to imply that it takes longer to re-target after a circle kick than it normally takes to re-target in the middle of combat. Is that true? --The Krit 22:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC) :::* Yes in normal combat you can re-target at the end of a flurry. WhiZard 22:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC) ::::* Nope, thats not right. Current note is wrong. First switching attack target from circle kick will happen in next flurry the circle kick was used. Second manually changing target after this cause lost of all attacks in current round and next round will happen the same -> you hit your target in first flurry, circle kick gets used and character automatically switch target in next flurry. ShaDoOoW 11:00, January 3, 2011 (UTC) :::::* I partially agree with User:ShaDoOoW, but I think the sentence you deleted was half true: ::::::When this happens, manually selecting the first target will have no impact until the end of the round (when normally it takes effect at the end of the flurry). ::::::As said on the Talk:Attack page, selecting another target will cause all attacks in the current round (not only in the current flurry) to be lost. In my opinion only the part in the brackets should have been deleted. The first part should be left on the page, as it holds valuable information for those who plan on using this skill. Praetor7 11:49, January 3, 2011 (UTC) ::::::*Well yes, it wasn't totally off, but I didnt knew how to change it so I just deleted problematic part, feel free to rephrase that deleted note with the new informations.ShaDoOoW 18:55, January 3, 2011 (UTC) One-on-one can circle kick attak the same foe your fighting eg: 1 on 1 fight would circle kick hit the one your fighting 15:06, May 4, 2010 (UTC) * The feat description says "another" enemy. That would imply you cannot make a circle kick attack against your current opponent. I have not tested this in the game to verify, though. --The Krit 13:07, May 27, 2010 (UTC) * I can confirm that - if you are fighting only one foe, CK never happens. --BCH 02:47, December 8, 2010 (UTC) Flurry of blows with circle kick bug If you're using no weapons and using fury of blows with the circle kick then you loose all additional attack's that fury of blows would of added after the circle kick gets used. Do not use Circle kick if you enjoy using fury of blows. -- November 24, 2010 *Is this really true? Can anyone second that? 14:30, December 10, 2010 (UTC) *Nope. It works for me, with 16(preepic) BAB monk get 6 normal attacks + haste + circle kick + flurry of blows I could see all 9 attacks in combat log. However last flurry was full BAB-2 (from haste), full BAB-5 (flurry of blows probably) and full BAB-10 which must have been additional attack for Circle Kick, so this attack suffers normal -5 AB progression same as Flurry of Blows. At lest in 1.69, 10:53, January 3, 2011 (UTC) Specifying when circle kick works and when it doesn't I added a note that read "*Circle Kick does not happen when a weapon is in the character's right hand. This can be used as a way to "turn off" Circle Kick if one does not want to use it in a given fight. Perhaps counter-intuitively, using a shield in the left hand does not affect Circle Kick (or Flurry of Blows)." I thought this was useful because a) equipping anything in the left hand does not disable circle kick the way the right hand does and b) many players may logically assume that because kamas allow access to some "unarmed" abilities and numbers, using them may count as being "unarmed" for all purposes. I found it interesting in my testing that Circle Kick specifically requires an empty right hand, while Flurry of Blows only requires that either hand be empty (or both). A monk can CK and FoB while using a shield, which I found surprising and not at all obvious. Was I not specific enough in my note, or is all of this information useless? --BCH 03:34, December 8, 2010 (UTC) * Not useless, but redundant. The feat description starts with "If the character succeeds in hitting an opponent with an unarmed attack". If you have a weapon in your right hand, then you are not using unarmed attacks, hence circle kick does not apply. It's not that circle kick requires an empty right hand, but that if your right hand is not empty, then it is holding a weapon so you are not unarmed. The reason you can put anything in your left hand is that you cannot put a weapon in your left hand without having one in your right hand. As long as you are not wielding a weapon, your attacks are unarmed, and you can make a circle kick. : : Flurry of blows does not require either hand to be empty; dual-wielding kamas while using flurry of blows is a fairly common tactic. It is surprising that flurry of blows (a monk-only ability) is not lost while using a shield. That is why that article mentions that it can be used with a shield (and in armor, for that matter). It should not be surprising that circle kick can be used while using a shield, as a shield does not prevent unarmed attacks (and circle kick is not a monk-only feat; in fact, try to find the word "monk" anywhere in this article). : It is not logical to assume that because both flurry of blows and UBAB say "with unarmed attacks or a kama" that every instance of "with unarmed attacks" is supposed to be followed by "or a kama". That is a hasty generalization, making it a solidly illogical assumption. (Not uncommon, but still not logical.) It is also not logical to assume that something specific to the monk class applies to a general feat like circle kick. You can still propose that the article include notes to the effect that these illogical conclusions have no basis in fact. But then, where do we draw the line (since there are a good number of illogical conclusions people can come to)? I wouldn't want the useful information to get lost in a sea of refutations. --The Krit 03:58, December 8, 2010 (UTC) : PS The hasty generalization fallacy is infamous in some circles, as basically the entire body of scientific knowledge is technically based on this fallacy. :) --The Krit 04:14, December 8, 2010 (UTC) :* I did not say or imply that every instance of "with unarmed attacks" should be followed by "or a kama." I said that it would be an awfully easy mistake for the common gamer to make that assumption, so it would be helpful and useful to point that out to the large number of gamers who might read this article without having the strict logic and depth of education you possess. I think that if putting the same facts in the article three different ways increases the chances that this article will be understandable and useful to a greater number of gamers, then that is all the reason we need to do so. I do not feel compelled by any rules against redundancy, because I've never seen a lack of redundancy help anyone's understanding. Sometimes, I have to explain things to someone three different ways before they get it, and if I insisted on only explaining it one way, I would not be serving any good purpose. --BCH 04:39, December 8, 2010 (UTC) ::* Correct, you did not say or imply that every instance of "with unarmed attacks" should be followed by "or a kama". (Not that anyone was saying otherwise, but whatever.) What you said was that it was a logical assumption, and it is not logical. Now we've moved from "logical" to "easy mistake", which is some progress. Not as much progress as moving from a fully redundant note (that unarmed attacks do not include armed attacks) to concern over confusion players may have about monks and kamas (neither of which were specifically mentioned in the original note), but still progress. True, sometimes explaining things different ways does help people to understand something, but usually that means explaining things in different ways, rather than just using the same way with different words. (For example, someone who sees "with an unarmed attack" but interprets it as "with an unarmed attack or a kama attack by a monk" is somewhat likely to see "when a weapon is in the character's right hand" but interpret it as "when a weapon is in the character's right hand excluding a kama in a monk's hand".) ::: Hmmm... I might have enough info about your intent to come up with a proposal. Maybe something like :::: While unarmed attacks are typically the domain of monks, this is a general feat. In particular, no monk-specific considerations apply. ::: That should have a better chance of getting through to those who have overgeneralized the monk's specialty weapon. On the other hand, sometimes repeatedly denying something has the tendency to strengthen the misconception by validating it. (So there is still some rationale for not addressing this here.) --The Krit 18:36, December 8, 2010 (UTC) :::* I think we're getting somewhere. It might also clarify my intent to mention that I'm worried that current notes #2 and #4 are lengthy and talk about potential downsides of CK and could easily be taken as warnings to stay away from the feat. That was part of my intention that I forgot to mention earlier. So I would be well satisfied with a fifth note that reads something like "Despite the potential complexities of Circle Kick, it can still be "turned off" by using any weapon in the right hand in any given round. This works even if the character is a monk and the weapon is a kama, because this is a general feat, not a monk-specific one." How does that grab ya? --BCH 01:15, December 9, 2010 (UTC) ::::* You need not worry. Notes 2 and 4 are warnings to stay away from this feat. --The Krit 03:14, December 9, 2010 (UTC) :::::* Well, I think that's more bias than complete information, understating the potential usefulness of the feat and the sheer fun of watching your character throw as many attacks as possible, while easily and immediately knowing you have a choice to not do that in more circumstances where it would be undesireable. I still think that if a little redundancy is the price of putting the "shutoff switch" in very plain language, giving the casual (or English-as-second-language) reader a clearer idea of the pros and cons of the feat, then it's worth it for that brief a note. --BCH 03:54, December 9, 2010 (UTC) ::::::* Mentioning the drawbacks is not bias. Neglecting to mention them would be bias, as would phrases like "the sheer fun of watching your character throw as many attacks as possible" (a highly subjective interpretation). As for having a choice, well every situation in which circle kick applies is one where the drawbacks apply, so it's basically an all-or-nothing — either you prefer the benefits over the drawbacks or you do not. The only bias I see in the current notes is the sentence with the phrase "useless feat". (I would not object to seeing that go.) The note about the bug is perhaps longer than it needs to be, but I declined to edit it earlier because I have not seen the bug myself, so I might get details wrong. On the other hand, since it seems to be rubbing you the wrong way, maybe I should take a shot at it and let others make corrections if I omit something pertinent. --The Krit 23:04, December 9, 2010 (UTC) :::::::* Mentioning the drawbacks without mentioning the easy way to avoid them is what I consider a bias: having the cons without the mitigating factor cleared pointed out. And yes, "sheer fun" is also bias; it's the bias to balance the long explanations of the negatives to present a more even depiction of the feat. --BCH 00:10, December 10, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::* But there is no way (easy or hard) to avoid the drawbacks. You can avoid the feat, but if you use the feat, you have the drawbacks. And the fact that this applies only to unarmed combat is already mentioned. When you want to repeat one limitation of this feat (unarmed only) because you like it, you are espousing bias for the feat, rather than opposing bias against the feat. --The Krit 18:51, January 4, 2011 (UTC) :::::::* Also, I don't agree that "you either prefer the drawbacks or you do not," because that's not true of me, and I don't think I'm terribly aberrant. In easier fights, especially against large numbers of less-threatening foes, I like to have a little more fun by using Circle Kick. If I feel threatened by an encounter, I turn off Circle Kick and focus on the most efficient tactics I can. Unlike many gamers, I don't feel that I have to use the most efficient tactics in absolutely every situation, because there is fun to be had elsewhere. I want to make that perspective available to those who might also enjoy it. Many online game resources contain only grim advice about maxium efficiency, and I think they're ignoring a significant segment of the gamer world. --BCH 00:10, December 10, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::* OK, that was poorly phrased on my part. The point is that the drawbacks cannot be separated from the feat. Once you take this feat, the drawbacks apply whenever the feat does. There is no way to shut off this feat, only to avoid the (clearly mentioned) circumstance in which it applies. --The Krit 18:51, January 4, 2011 (UTC) ::::::* By the way, if you really want to throw as many attacks as possible, this feat is not the answer. This feat gives you one extra attack per round if you hit something. Dual-wielding gives you one extra attack per round regardless of something being hit and does not require any feats to use (two feats to use effectively, but none to get the extra attack). Advantage: weapons. Throw in improved two-weapon fighting (a three-feat investment in this context) for yet another attack in each round, and fighting with weapons comes out marginally, yet solidly, ahead (in terms of number of attacks) of anything that can be done with unarmed attacks. --The Krit 23:40, December 9, 2010 (UTC) :::::::* Oh, yeah, I love all those feats as well. One of my favorite characters is a monk/rogue who uses the whole gamut you just mentioned, plus Circle Kick, Haste, etc. Part of the joy of that build for me is that the character has two very different magic kamas (created by the various options in SoU), and two excellent pairs of magic gloves, and I greatly enjoy swapping them around to see which combo works best in which encounter. That's what, six optional configurations right there? I love options! And I love game guides that give me more options, rather than only telling me "this is mathematically the best option." I'm happy if that maximal option is presented and explained, but disappointed and wary if no other option is presented with its pros and cons. --BCH 00:10, December 10, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::* That is a good approach for NWNWiki — presenting the facts and letting readers come to their own conclusions. Just remember that it goes both ways. Promoting the love of options while playing (rather than simply presenting each option) is no less biased than promoting the mathematically best option (rather than simply mentioning which option is mathematically best). As for mathematically best in this case, you are the one to bring up the phrase "as many attacks as possible", not me. --The Krit 18:51, January 4, 2011 (UTC) Free attacks I may be missing something, but this seems contradictory to me: There is a maximum of one free attack per round. For example, if the character also has cleave, the free attack from cleave will happen first, while that from circle kick will occur later in the round. In my simplistic mind, either a character only gets one free attack per round, or they can get two per round - one at the beginning (cleave) and one at the end (circle kick). Sadly, I often miss the obvious ... 15:53, October 28, 2014 (UTC) * You are missing the context. The context of "There is a maximum of one free attack per round." is the description of circle kick. As it is not in the description of "free attack", feel free to assume it is not a general description of free attacks. There is no limit on how many free attacks one can get per round, but there is a limit of one free attack from circle kick per round. --The Krit (talk) 04:47, October 29, 2014 (UTC)